Welcome to the blog that concerns all dinosaurs that are more closely related to (and including) Tyrannosaurus rex than to the English sparrow (Passer domesticus). This will be the place to read about tyrannosauroid osteology, ontogeny, and phylogeny, as well as updates on my tyrannosauroid research as it happens, my thoughts about new scientific discoveries on tyrannosauroids, and the occurrences of tyrannosauroids in pop culture.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Tyrannoethics

"Money beats soul, every time" -Jim Morrison. "Resist or perish" -A. C. Crispin. The private ownership of dinosaur skeletons is an unethical tide that must be reversed; our science needs society's active protection against this deprivation of data.

In the wake of the November 19th
Bonhams auction of dinosaur fossils, and as the fate of those stunning specimens are
decided mostly by nonscientists, I elaborate here on why the auction of vertebrate
fossils is unethical. I follow as a framework the ethics guidelines of the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), in particular Sections 4 and 6 of Article 12 .

Section 4.
Deposition of fossil specimens
Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with ancillary
data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of repositories
charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study
and education (e.g., accredited museums, universities, colleges and other
educational institutions).

The decision to put the specimens on auction puts fossils in
a perilous position, where they may be purchased by anyone is an action that is in violation of this section. The high
prices of the fossils puts them out of the reach of museums and toward, if not
into, the grasp of private interests. In the time preceding an auction, the specimens are not curated
into a legitimate repository, which is also in violation of this section. The true value of a dinosaur skeleton is not monetary; its value is really in its capacity as a test - and an expansion - of previous knowledge, which is what the deposition section is intended to protect.

Section 6.
Commercial sale or trade
The barter, sale or purchase of scientifically significant vertebrate fossils
is not condoned, unless it brings them into, or keeps them within, a public
trust. Any other trade or commerce in scientifically significant vertebrate
fossils is inconsistent with the foregoing, in that it deprives both the public
and professionals of important specimens, which are part of our natural
heritage.

The decision to auction a fossil for millions of dollars to private interests is in
violation of this section. The arrangement of such a sale is an action taken against
the interests of the public trust, science and education. Also, the decision to
participate in the promotion of such a sale, such as giving interviews of endorsement and writing copy for the
corresponding catalog, contravenes this ethic.

Given these ethical guidelines, it is reasonable to assume that a private individual who
buys dinosaur fossils really values possession for its own sake, not science or
the scientific knowledge that could be gained from a specimen. A private
collection is a hoard, which is not equivalent to a museum or university
collection, where fossils are catalogued and conserved, and access to
researchers is assured. Science requires those standards for reproducibility of
observations, for science is nothing if it is deprived of the ability to test knowledge claims.

Society has to be reminded that scientific knowledge is more important than possessing an expensive toy. A paleontologist cannot publish an observation of a privately owned
fossil without violating the ethics of the field. Knowing this, fossil dealers
and the collectors who pay huge amounts of money for the fossils, must have a
complete indifference or contempt for science. I don’t see any way around that
inference - the deprivating effect of the exchange upon science speaks for itself.

For example, the T.
rex specimen nicknamed Samson was auctioned into the inky night of a
private collection. Even if the owner rolled out a red carpet for me and
slapped a set of digital calipers in my hands, I cannot publish my observations
in the scientific literature because the specimen is not in a public trust that
has external accountability. Therefore, section 6 is a reasonable restriction that ensures
the self-correcting process of science through access to specimens, and rightly delegitimates
the private ownership of fossils.

One serious cost that the market and private ownership of
expensive dinosaur fossils brings with it is the decay of the view of museums
as the only legitimate and ennobling repositories for irreplaceable objects. Dealers
especially (I think more than collectors) require that narrative to validate
their actions and the prices they ask for. Sections 4 and 6 are important
reminders that museums are institutions that operate for the good of society,
not for the gratification of the few who, for thousands or millions of dollars, would deprive civilization of a deeper understanding of Nature and our place in it.

3 comments:

I completely agree with your ethics. And I'm very happy that my country (Italy) has a specific law for all the cultural heritage, including fossils, found in the Italian territory, that states that every fossil found in Italy belongs to the Italian People, and cannot be sold or used privately. Every fossil found here has to be deposited in public institutions, for the purpose of scientific research and cultural development of everyone.

Hi Andrea,Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comment! Could you point me in the direction of an English translation of Italy's natural resources law, as it pertains to fossils? It is heartening to know that there is an additional legal model that could be used as a reference for revising the laws in the United States.

Sections 4 and 6 are indeed good guidelines to follow when you can or under ideal circumstances, but that doesn't mean they must always be followed and can't be compromised on if you want to get more science done.

"a museum or university collection, where fossils are catalogued and conserved, and access to researchers is assured"

Often untrue, as I've noted previously.

"Knowing this, fossil dealers and the collectors who pay huge amounts of money for the fossils, must have a complete indifference or contempt for science."

Untrue, as Bennett's (2003) example of Nyctosaurus shows. If the buyer had complete indifference or contempt for science, they would not have allowed study by Bennett.

"Even if the owner rolled out a red carpet for me and slapped a set of digital calipers in my hands, I cannot publish my observations in the scientific literature because the specimen is not in a public trust that has external accountability."

You choose not to, but you COULD. Bennett did, but he's not the Impossible Man.

None of this means we shouldn't strive to make our laws more like Italy's, but since they aren't like Italy's now, your all or nothing ethical approach will result in less data. That you value certain ethical principles more than accumulating data is fine, but your narrative of museums assuring access, all sellers/buyers hating science and the impossibility of respected paleontologists doing published science on sold specimens doesn't match reality.